Talk:Manor of Molland

Original research etc
I've spent a while looking at just one section of this article, checking the information against the cited sources and any others I can find. The result is a number of citation needed and original research tags. There are also a number of dates of death that don't have any obvious references (I've only tagged some of them), so I hope that there is another so-far uncited source that has provided the details of these. —S MALL JIM   16:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, refs to be added shortly, probably from Vivian, Heraldic Visitations. I don't know why you removed the main article tag in Molland linking to the article on the manor? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Just to deal with that last point first, I finally expanded the History section sufficiently so that a sub-heading and a Main template seemed to be warranted. Comments on your edits today will follow. —S MALL  JIM   17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had noticed, good to see that article expanding. I await your comments. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC))

There are still problems
All of this was generated from just one paragraph of the 40 or so in the article.

On the left (Pre) is the wikitext including my inline tags. On the right (Post) is Lobsterthermidor's response.


 * In this first snippet I asked for a reference for the death date of 1488 and the year that he was Sheriff, stated as 1470/1.

The date of death has gone (assumed OR), and the year 1470/1 explained as "11 Edward IV (i.e. 1740/1 1470/1)" (which might be borderline OR - how many people looking at the source would know how to confirm this?) The refs for this are given as Pole, p. 100 (on which page there is no mention of him in the Google Books version - it's on p.98) and Risdon (published 1811, not 1810 as stated), where it is certainly on p.11 of an appendix, the title of the relevant section of which is actually "The Sheriffs of Devon since the Conquest".


 * So one piece of OR removed, one piece dubiously cited and both citations have errors.
 * Solution: fix the citations, get advice on whether converting "11 Edward IV" into " 1740/1 1470/1" is OR or not - WP:CALC refers.


 * Here I asked for confirmation that Philip Courtenay was given the Hungerford manor of Molland by his parents.

Rogers, p. 385 states: "Sir Philip Courtenay (second son of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham, and Elizabeth daughter of Walter Lord Hungerford) had, through his mother, who was sister of Robert, Lord Hungerford, who married Margaret daughter and heiress of William, the last Lord Bottreaux, Molland given to him as his portion." Does that confirm that he was given by his parents the Hungerford manor of Molland? I can't see it.


 * The text seems to be interpreting what is in the source.
 * Solution: rephrase to reflect what the source actually says - WP:STICKTOSOURCE refers.


 * This asked for confirmation of Elizabeth's date of death, and that the Wonwall mentioned is in the parish of Kingston, Devon.

The date of death has gone (assumed OR) The first source cited, Vivian (p.246), says of the wife of this Philip Courtenay of Molland:"Elizabeth, da. of ... [three dots, sic] and widow of William Hyndeston of Wonwall."The second source, Risdon (pp.182-3), states, under an entry for Kingston: "In this parish is Wonwell which gave name to its ancient owner Thomas de Wonwell ... Robert de Hendeston succeeded, and Philip his son after him, who left three daughters, Margaret ..., Elizabeth, wife of Phillip Courtenay, of Molland, and Phillippa ..." So Vivian indicates that the parentage of Philip Courtenay's wife, Elizabeth, was unknown, and he states that she was the widow of William Hyndeston of Wonwall. On the other hand, Risdon says that Elizabeth, the wife of Phillip Courtenay of Molland was a daughter of Philip de Hendeston of Wonwell in Kingston. Apart from the Hyndeston/Hendeston, Wonwall/Wonwell and Philip/Phillip inconsistencies (to be expected in this sort of material), in one source Elizabeth's parentage is unknown, whereas in the other it is the whole basis of her coming from Kingston. The assumptions made here are exactly the sort of thing that policy forbids us from doing. As it stands we are now the sole published source that Elizabeth, the widow of William Hyndeston, came from Kingston - yes it's possible, but it requires original research to make that connection.

Incidentally, Rogers (following immediately on from the section quoted above) says: "He [Sir Philip Courtenay] married a daughter of Robert Hingeston of Wonewell." which further complicates matters.


 * One piece of OR removed, and one piece of synthesis from inconsistent sources.
 * Solution: Since Vivian is the principal source being used, scrap ("alias" Hendeston) and the mention of Kingston. A mention in a footnote of what Risdon says might be OK.

I'm sorry to dash your hopes again, Lobsterthermidor, but apart from the removal of a couple of dates (which I guess may have come from thepeerage.com, like these did) there's no evidence here that you have a sufficient grasp of our policy on No original research to properly deal with this type of material. The assumptions you make may be fine in genealogical research, but not here. To be fair, this isn't exactly easy stuff to apply the policy to (and I wouldn't claim to be 100% correct either - a third-party opinion would be most welcome), but if you've decided to publish your work on Wikipedia, you have to comply with it. Especially as very few other people are likely to take the time and effort needed to confirm it, so it is likely to sit here, unchecked, for years. —S MALL JIM   11:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is getting absurd. I have consulted Likely to be challenged, which tells me that I do not need inline citations for statements with a less than 50% chance of being challenged. I resent your assumption of bad faith that I am making up my text. I'm going to answer your points as fully as possible and then in future will rely on the guideline cited. You are not the average reader who takes text on trust, you seek citations for every date, every fact stated which is not in accordance with guideline WP:CITE.
 * Your very first point is typical of your lack of good faith. The death of Sir Philip I Courtenay occurred in "4 Henry VII", i.e. "the fourth year of the reign of Henry VII" as is stated in my source Vivian, p.246, which states that his inquisition post mortem occured in this year. That means to most reasonable people that he died very shortly before then. That is the whole basis of mediaeval dating, very little is totally certain. That is a perfectly adequate source for stating he died in 1488. You too have that source and should have been able to verify it. If you don't understand that that means 1488 I can't help you further, it's a very standard form of giving dates in texts covering mediaeval history. (Henry VII (1485-1509), 1485 + 4 - 1 =1488)You are incorrect to suggest this form of dating is OR, it is very standard. If that's what you believe then every Heraldic visitation would be an inadmissable source for WP, whilst in fact they form the basic source for most biographies on mediaeval people.
 * The ref supplied for Philip Courtenay's tenure as Sheriff is the source given in High Sheriff of Devon, which I have no reason whatsoever to assume unreliable. I also supplied yet another source of Risdon. What more do you want?
 * I have dealt with your remaining points in-line using bold as an easier option. Please see above.


 * Your criticisms are unfounded, and your demands for sources are becoming unreasonable and bordering on the obsessive. Please desist. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC))


 * I object to interruptions (of the sort you added) in my postings, so I have removed them, per WP:TPO. Please respond in the usual manner, and without incivility. Then we can discuss this further. Thank you. —S MALL  JIM   20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the conversion of (e.g.) "Chanc. Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. VII, No. 87." to "died 1488", I'm not convinced that falls within the definition of a routine calculation as defined at WP:CALC, so I've asked for opinions from any experts hanging out at WP:NORN.  —S MALL  JIM   22:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Second paragraph checked
Maybe the examples above weren't all that clear. I think these from the very next paragraph of the article are better. I've changed the format to show displayed text with only the nowiki'ed – this seems to show the changes up more clearly.

As before, on the left (Pre) is the text including my inline tags. On the right (Post) is Lobsterthermidor's response.


 * Here I first queried the "It is probable ..." since without a citation it sounds like the opinion of the editor. Secondly I asked for a citation for the statement that the so-described gothic chest tomb "of this couple" (i.e. Philip and Elizabeth Courtenay) once stood in Molland Church, and thirdly that it was later demolished, cut up, carelessly joined together etc. as a space-saving measure.

But we can cut this short. The supplied reference, Rogers, doesn't attribute this (destroyed) tomb to Philip I Courtenay of Molland, in whose section this text appears. Neither does Hoskins in the quote that follows – he carefully writes "a Courtenay and his wife" (evidently following Stabb). Pevsner (another good source for this type of material) just says" Fragments of a late Perp tomb-chest with quatrefoils and the Courtenay arms".(p. 572)

In fact, I can find no sources that say that this tomb was probably that of Philip and Elizabeth Courtenay, whereas the original text said it probably was - clear original research. If there is a reliable source for this statement, why was it not cited?

This looks very much like the correction of OR: 1. "quartering Bohun" has been relegated, to match the source, to "quartering a bend". The source doesn't mention "Bohun" here at all. 2. The apparent personal analysis of "placed sidewise" and "correctly orientated" has gone too.

In view of the interpolation previously made above (see here), I'm not sure if this was removed because it was wrong, because it was based on personal opinion, or because the source has not been recovered yet. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

So we have three sentences in this second paragraph checked, all of which either apparently include or consist solely of OR.

I must point out that the purpose of this analysis is not at this stage to fully clean up this article (there would still be over 40 paragraphs still to check!), but to provide evidence that Lobsterthermidor has added original research that remains unchallenged because the subject matter is obscure. So where, above, he says to me "I resent your assumption of bad faith that I am making up my text", it's not an assumption of bad faith, but a considered view that after looking carefully at a lot of his work, I now hold and I am trying to provide evidence for. I would, nevertheless, be very happy if it could be shown that all the apparent OR actually comes from sources that have not, for some reason, been cited. —S MALL JIM   00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I'm making some pretty serious allegations, Lobsterthermidor, I'm giving you the opportunity here of proving me wrong which you can potentially do by making rational (and civil, please) counter-arguments. —S MALL JIM   00:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Obsessive challenges
This article already has over 100 footnotes. Contributors are not required under WP:CITE to add in-line refs for text which in their own experience has a less than 50% chance of being challenged. I have erred on the side of generosity hence over 100 footnotes. If you have any reasonable requests for even more sources to be supplied, please add cn tags at the appropriate places in the text in the normal manner, preferably with clear, concise details of the perceived problem, and I will deal with them individually. At present there are none in the article. I am not prepared to be dragged into the obsessive and forensic examination of every source your Byzantine tabulation unreasonably demands. Some of your points are so obscure as to be difficult to comprehend. My contributions are made for readers who are reasonable, not for people who actively wish to deconstruct every possible nuance of every word written.

Please stand back a moment and review for example the absurdness of your previous challenge that my source did not support my text that "Wonwell is in the parish of Kingston". My source given was Risdon, p. 182, which under the paragraph heading "KINGSTON" (in capitals), states 8 lines below "In this parish is Wonwell". Yes, you actually challenged that!

Another of your challenges concerned my reliance on regnal years as valid sources, a wholly standard form used in countless historical text books, even in Encyclopaedia Brit!

Your first set of challenges, several in just one short paragraph, have been fully dealt with in my last post (including bolds, now removed by you, used as I stated to make responding easier to such an unstructured mass of forensically detailed challenges). You have now come back to have another go with a further mass of forensically detailed challenges. This is not reasonable behaviour. Please make your reasonable challenges clearly and concisely using cn tags within the article, in the normal way, and I will deal with them individually. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC))


 * Sigh. Once again you have misunderstood almost all of what I have written – I don't have this problem with other editors. Do read the last paragraph of my posting above (00:00, 7 July: "I must point out...") carefully. Not since I made this post on 21 June (which you clearly read, but did not reply to) has this been about satisfying individual concerns in one article. For the record your interpolations, that I deleted, can be seen in this version. —S MALL  JIM   18:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you're going to complain about what I wrote, you can at least get what you yourself wrote correct - because it's important: you didn't write "Wonwell is in the parish of Kingston", you wrote "Wonwall [is] in the parish of Kingston". Which source confirms that, exactly? Risdon doesn't. It was you who decided that Wonwall is the same place as Wonwell, presumably based on the mention of some people who sounded like they are the same in both sources. That is OR. You could cite Risdon instead of Vivian here, but you'd then have to get rid of the unrecorded parentage bit, because Risdon names her father.
 * Yes, this is on the face of it petty squabbling about tiny points, but it's the principle that I'm trying to get across to you. As I indicated above, Wonwell/Wonwall is not a very good example because it's complex. Try looking at example 4 and see if that helps explain better. —S MALL  JIM   20:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I am not prepared to be dragged into the obsessive and forensic examination of every source your Byzantine tabulation unreasonably demands or to discuss any further the location of Wonwell/Wonwall for which I have supplied a very clear source above. I repeat again: Please make your reasonable challenges clearly and concisely using cn tags or other appropriate tag within the article, in the normal way, and I will deal with them individually. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

Use of primary sources
Regarding the tag "Primary sources|article|date=July 2013" placed on the article, I have added to the Sources section the work by Rogers, (already appearing in the refs) which contains transcripts of many of the Courtenay monumental inscriptions in Molland Church. I am always on the look-out for further sources on this subject, but have as yet found none. Perhaps the Transactions of the Devonshire Association may have something. I will be searching that in due course. However, primary sources are still valid, and quoting directly from monuments and archive material is valid sourcing under Verifiability: "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". (Footnote attached:) "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see" (end of footnote). I have quoted directly from the monuments rather than from Rogers to avoid any possible transcription error by Rogers. I will leave the tag on the page, but if it is found that significant further sources are not available, it would then seem sensible to remove it, or am I wrong? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC))
 * As per the comment when I added the tag, there are a number of primary sources apparently being used in the article, including:
 * Charter no.243
 * North Devon Record Office 50/11/27/5
 * Devon Feet of Fines
 * Throckmorton Archives, various deeds.
 * The issue isn't whether these have been published, but whether they are "reliable secondary sources". If you need any explanation of what a primary or secondary source is, I'm happy to help further. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These sources (documents in publicly-accessible archives) are specifically allowed byVerifiability, as stated above. They do not constitute the core of the article, but are brought in where appropriate as valid sources. The main core of the article, namely the order of descent of the Courtenay family, is based on the heraldic visitations of Devon, a secondary work edited by Vivian, a highly skilled and well respected genealogist, whose work is a standard reference and was published by the highly respected Harleian Society (despite the fact the US photo-reprint states erroneously published by College of Arms). He selected materials from the original returns and where possible combined that with other sources, i.e. well respected Victorian family pedigrees (i.e. for Chichester family, p.172, footnote)) cross-referenced it to the returns made by related families, and corroborated much by reference to monumental inscriptions,  inquisitions post mortem etc. He also added in further detail such as dates public offices held. It is without question considered a reliable source. There are many further reliable secondary sources used in this article, listed in the refs. There is no ban on the use of primary sources per se under WP guidelines, which when used by me have been used with care, per the guideline. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC))
 * I could have sworn Hchc2009 posted a further comment here to which I replied. I don't know where they've gone. I'll try to summarise. I think you said basically be careful that primary source is reliable. I replied: understood, I think the primary sources I've quoted regarding the monumental inscriptions are reliable, probably (I know I'm speculating, but ok for talk-page I think) epitaphs composed by surviving family members and handed to monumental masons to inscribe. (Often they state e.g. "This monument was erected by his grieving son in the year XXXX" etc.) Really only contain facts such as age, date of death, names of wife, children etc., & a bit of poetry. I hear what you say. Have a read of the article and let me know of any specific concerns. Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

Latin inscriptions & translations
My understanding of WP guidelines on this topic is as follows (it is taken for granted that the use of inscriptions per se is accepted as a valid source under WP:Verifiability (footnote 6)):

WP:NONENG
("Quoting non-English sources", a section in WP:Verifiability) "Quoting non-English sources. When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations

In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited.

WP:TRANSCRIPTION
(Translations and transcriptions, a section in No original research) "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research".

Conclusion
The language here being dealt with is mediaeval Latin. This routinely uses standard abbreviations, A D being the most obvious one, ob. (obiit, he died) being another. The recognition of these many common standard abbreviated forms are necessarily part of a translator's understanding of the language itself. If WP is willing to allow Wikipedians to perform translations, which it is as shown above, this seems to imply (I'm speculating here off mainspace free from OR considerations) a certain amount of trust being placed in their personal expertise and experience in dealing with the language concerned. If a translator can give a full translation in English, which implies he must from his experience know what the full Latin words are, it would appear good practice to give the Latin in full on which the translation is based in order that future editors with experience in this area can make their own input, perhaps improvement. That was my thinking in expanding the abbreviations, with expanded letters in brackets, to make clear to the reader the basis of the translation. I would be happy for my reasoning and interpretation of WP guidelines on this topic to be subjected to OR review on No original research/Noticeboard to reach a consensus view. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC))


 * I think it would be a good idea to try to get a consensus view on this; although I'm not wholly convinced I don't see any point in pursuing this particular case as long as you amend the reference to make it clear what exactly is in Rogers. —S MALL  JIM   19:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed etc
I've added lots of Reference necessary tags to the article today, but have run out of time – though I have many more to add. (I earlier marked up a paper copy and am working through it.) The intention when the tagging is complete is to userfy the article because it is clearly not ready to be seen by the public. —S MALL JIM   17:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The amount of pink ink on this page is over-the-top. Why the obsession over this one article? I understand that claims need to be sourced but this article already has 90 references and it seems like you want 90 more. It's crazy when a footnote is demanded for every single sentence (or multiple references for single sentences). I've seen historical articles of medium-length with only 4 or 5 citations (and I've seen some historical articles with NONE!) so this one page seems to be being held to an unreasonably high standard when you compare it to similar Wikipedia articles.


 * It just raises the question, what is at stake here? Personal reputations? Moral high ground? Expert status? Ability to say, "I'm right and you're wrong"? I just don't get it. There is so much work that needs to be done on Wikipedia, to labor and fight over one article seems completely misguided. Look at the category at the bottom of this page: "Low importance Devon articles".


 * I should add that I don't know anything about this particular subject (which seems very obscure to me) and I don't know anyone who has edited this page. I just saw this editing war being talked about on another page and thought I would investigate. My summary judgment? It's not about content any more but about conflicting personalities. It's like a game of "Last person standing". 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've "won", Jim as Lobsterthermidor has retired. Looks like some other editor will have to track down those dozens of citations that have been requested. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I could reply to this in detail, but I'd only be repeating myself. If you haven't already seen it, have a look at Lobsterthermidor's talk page from Original research onwards. Also above, my reply to "Obsessive challenges". I have clearly explained several times that this isn't just about this article. And unless I'm way off beam, a large proportion of these requested citations cannot be fulfilled because they are original research. —S MALL  JIM   11:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is synthesis, but there are two others
I've finally worked out what's really wrong with this article and the others like it. It's not an encyclopedia article at all, but a piece of new research. Nowhere else, as far as I can tell, is there published a descent of the manor (that is a listing of all the people who held or owned it) in anything like this degree of completeness. White's Devonshire Directory of 1850 gives the bare bones:"Sir Robert George Throckmorton, Bart., owns nearly all the parish, and is lord of the manor of Molland Bottreaux, anciently held by the Bottreaux family, and afterwards by the Hungerfords, whose heiress carried it in marriage to a younger branch of the Courtenays, who were seated here till 1732, when their heiress brought it to the Throckmortons ... The manor house of Molland Champeaux, or Champion, was long the seat of the Columbs, and afterwards of the Courtenays." 1. What this article does is vastly expand the above summary by collating data on each member (and close relatives) of those families who can be shown to have held one of these two manors. This has been done by gathering pieces of information from many different sources such as family trees originally compiled in the 16th century (Vivian), 17th to early 19th-century topographies (Risdon, Pole, Lysons etc.) and where these published sources are silent, by relying on primary material such as deeds, Feet of Fines, monumental inscriptions, etc. This seems to be normal article-creation research, but in this case the result is a novel synthesis that has not apparently been worked out before.

What clinched it for me was reading the essay WP:SYNTHNOT, at SYNTH is not unpublishably original. This gives the insight that if an article would be accepted for publication by a relevant journal, then it must be a new contribution to the field and as such we should not be the ones to publish it. I think there's little doubt that this article, and Lobsterthermidor's contributions in several other articles (such as Manor of Monkleigh, Manor of Combe Martin, Bradfield House, Brightley, Chittlehampton, Whitechapel, Bishops Nympton, Shirwell, Stevenstone, etc.) would be actively considered for publication by one of the Devon journals such as the Transactions of the Devonshire Association or Devon Historian.

2. Of the 101 cited references in the pre-tagged version of this article, at most 25 of them were first published after 1900 and only 15 after 1950, and these 15 mostly deal with minor points, such as the four references (to Reed, 1977) that verify details of a wife's relatives who did not live here. One of the others is to a generally-considered unreliable source, thepeerage.com, too. The important point here is that a strong case can be made for old secondary sources to be treated as primary ones, or at least as being of dubious reliability, because of the likelihood of later research modifying or overturning their conclusions. So failure of WP:SECONDARY: "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" is another likely factor here.

3. In addition to the above two points, I've tried to show by the extensive tagging that there are many statements unattributed to any source which, despite some research of my own, cannot be easily cited. Many of them sound like original research – I've tagged 15 occurrences of "probably", "appears", "may have", and "possibly", for instance, though there is much more. This has been shown (see above, these three retractions and the AN/I submission, for instance) to have been a regular problem with those few contributions of Lobsterthermidor's that have so far been looked at in some depth. The expression of such personal opinions is encouraged in historical research, but it has no place here, and there's no reason to suspect that his substantial edits to other articles that have not yet been checked will be any different in this respect. So, being full of difficult-to-disentangle original research would be another factor against retaining these articles.

In summary, although one cannot help but have high regard for Lobsterthermidor's research abilities, he has been publishing his work in the wrong place, and it should be removed. I'd strongly prefer userfication, even though he has now retired, because the material may prove of use to others who wish to pick through it for usable content. However, since one cannot userfy articles without an AfD, (WP:USERFY, point 3) I'll start one, referring to these notes.

Comments would be most welcome here or at my talk page, or, when it gets going, at the AfD. —S MALL JIM   16:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I'm going to reduce these articles to stubs instead, in accordance with WP:STUBIFY. —S MALL JIM   21:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Refutation: Published descent of the manor
In response to the above assertion: "Nowhere else, as far as I can tell, is there published a descent of the manor (that is a listing of all the people who held or owned it) in anything like this degree of completeness", please see the quoted source Vivian, pp.251-252, a secondary and reliable source, headed "Courtenay of Molland", which sets out exactly that, from about 1450 to the start of the Throckmorton era. No clearer or more reliable exposition could be wished for. The article expands upon this basic outline, using further sources. The history before and after this period are set out in other sources, again quoted. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC))